Nobody has commented on the Ohio abortion bill yet?

[Winstonm]

Why should someone be forced to "clarify" just because you continue to deliberately misunderstand his post?

Forced?

[Vampyr]

Forced?

 

Yes. There is a limit to how often and in how many different ways a person's viewpoint can be deliberately misrepresented.

[Zelandakh]

Well, 20 weeks is a lot better than six. Hopefully most rape victims will know by then that they are pregnant. Can't hurt to look on the bright side.

 

But according to this article, the Supreme Court has ruled that foetal viability is thought to be at 24 months, so this bill may not stand up to legal challenge anyway.

This to me was precisely the point of passing the 6 week law. The politicians knew full well that it would not become law but by doing this they make the following 20 week law, which they know is a challenge to the current legal position, seem more reasonable. They also hope that the adjusted make-up of the SC will be willing to uphold this position, thus opening the way for further erosion of abortion rights across the country.

[Cyberyeti]

It is a commonly repeated myth that the 10 commandments are the source of morality. Morality exists independent of religious belief, and existed long before the 10 commandments legend. We have written laws dating back to Hammurabi and it seems logical to assume that societies developed rules of conduct long before the invention of writing. And most non-Xian societies have always had, as far as history is known, some constraints on murder.

 

When I said it arrived via the 10 commandments I was alluding to the fact that the prohibition existed earlier, but the 10 commandments was a handy reference point when religious people came to write it down.

[Vampyr]

This to me was precisely the point of passing the 6 week law. The politicians knew full well that it would not become law but by doing this they make the following 20 week law, which they know is a challenge to the current legal position, seem more reasonable. They also hope that the adjusted make-up of the SC will be willing to uphold this position, thus opening the way for further erosion of abortion rights across the country.

 

You're right; this is frequently the tactic of fringe groups.

 

It is likely a tactic Trump will use often; dial back the crazy a little from the campaign and hope people are relieved.

[Winstonm]

Yes. There is a limit to how often and in how many different ways a person's viewpoint can be deliberately misrepresented.

 

I am amazed you have the ability to read my mind and motivations. I cannot do that. I have to ask. Have you any other special powers?

[barmar]

There is a part of the moral code which is largely uncontroversial. Maybe the prohibition on murder arrived via the 10 commandments, but it's supported by almost everybody.

 

Abortion is a divisive issue where there is little consensus, hence why it's different to murder as regards legislation.

Indeed, I talked about this in post #20 a week ago. As I said there, how do you know where to draw the line? What percentage of the population has to agree on the moral issue to justify turning it into a law? And is that even the right criteria? The majority isn't always right, consider slavery, segregation, and LBGT rights in the past. Sometimes we depend on politicians to be smarter than the average person, and do what's right despite it not being popular.

[Cyberyeti]

Indeed, I talked about this in post #20 a week ago. As I said there, how do you know where to draw the line? What percentage of the population has to agree on the moral issue to justify turning it into a law? And is that even the right criteria? The majority isn't always right, consider slavery, segregation, and LBGT rights in the past. Sometimes we depend on politicians to be smarter than the average person, and do what's right despite it not being popular.

 

For consensus I would consider not only the number of people which would need to be very high, but that it was spread across races and groups. Segregation may have got a majority, but not a big enough one or had it spread across the whole cross section of society.

[mikeh]

When I said it arrived via the 10 commandments I was alluding to the fact that the prohibition existed earlier, but the 10 commandments was a handy reference point when religious people came to write it down.

your biases are showing. I guess that in your world there never have been religions other than the three of the book (Judaism, Islam and Xianity)? I wonder where Bhuddists got their morality, or are they reckless, wanton murderers, adulterers and thieves? Or Hindu? Or pre-colonization/forced conversion inhabitants of NA? etc.

 

What many westerners appear to fail to understand is that there are virtually NO original elements in the jewish or Christian mythologies, including codes of law and events such as the flood. This is a testament (pun acknowledged) to the success of (mainly) Xianity in claiming to itself the mantle of being the word of god, rather than being a hodgepodge of now largely forgotten myths from vanquished societies. And, of course, Europe and in latter years NA have long relied upon the self-evident truth that the beliefs of other cultures are primitive and of no consequence.

[Zelandakh]

For consensus I would consider not only the number of people which would need to be very high, but that it was spread across races and groups. Segregation may have got a majority, but not a big enough one or had it spread across the whole cross section of society.

You have to be careful with where you are going here CY. What represents a group in this context? White supremacists can certainly be considered to be a group and at one time were an extremely large one. Should we avoid any law that they do not agree with? Just the last election has shown that there are groups with views that one would hope a civilization such as the USA would not enact into law - but if we cancel any law that they do not agree with then who knows where we might head? I think you need to rework your criteria here and come up with a more considered position.

[Kaitlyn S]

There is a part of the moral code which is largely uncontroversial. Maybe the prohibition on murder arrived via the 10 commandments, but it's supported by almost everybody.

What about the most important commandment?

 

1. Thou shalt be practical. (I am not trying to override God's word but this commandment should get a lot of respect.)

 

The people imposing their moral beliefs don't know the situation as well as the mother does.

 

(A) in the case that Mom would care about the child, she is probably in a decent position to know that the unborn child would live a very difficult life, I believe we should let her decide to make that not happen.

 

(B) In the case that Mom doesn't care about the child, a good case can be made that this child, if born is going to have serious issues.

 

While I don't think Mom should abort a 32 week fetus, I have to think that letting Mom decide is right most of the time.

 

This is even more true when laws are going to lead to disaster rather than being followed. For abirtion-preventing laws will elicit dangerous behavior rather than compliance.

 

I had not even thought about a Mom that couldn't afford early testing that would find a fetus that would develop into a child that Mom couldn't handle and would be a burden to society. Poor and minority women could easily be thrust into an almost impossible situation. Having seen their sweetie tossed into prison for some minimal offense might make the poor young woman fear the law enough to not abort when it should be almost obvious to do so.

[blackshoe]

The same system that allowed idiots to vote for someone who chose to blow 2 civilian cities, babies, kids, elderly. pregnant, nature, everything on its path in Japan just because they wanted no more military people to die and to end the fight between soldiers early.

If you're referring to Truman, you better check your facts.

[onoway]

Women have always tried to find ways to prevent carrying an unwanted child and men have always tried to stop them. We have largely lost the herbal knowlege ( which would be another thread)' so desperate women do resort to coat hangers, various concoctions of more or less dangerous substances which may, whether or not successful in dislodging the foetus, permanently damage both it and the mother, or, of course, the under the radar abortionist who may or may not simply swap one problem for another.

 

But a country which according to UN figures was responsible through sanctions for the death of at least 5000 infants and children under 5 in Iraq is astonishingly facile in using any terms regarding right to life. . That was just through sanctions, and doesn't include what went on later in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria with active bombing ( or shootings) either directly or indirectly for which the U.S. was largely if not entirely responsible, and doesn't include the children and infants who have drowned or otherwise died as their parents running from wars try desperately to find a safe haven. This is only relatively recent history. I doubt many who saw it will ever forget the photo of the naked child covered in napalm running screaming down the road in Vietnam.

 

The hypocrisy is truly astounding.

[diana_eva]

Removed a personal attack and a couple of replies to it. Keep it civil please, no need to resort to name calling.

[hrothgar]

There is a part of the moral code which is largely uncontroversial. Maybe the prohibition on murder arrived via the 10 commandments, but it's supported by almost everybody.

 

There are wide spread parts of the world in which infanticide and honor killings are perfectly acceptable.

(Of course, its primarily females who are being killed)

 

Here in the United States, we're perfectly happy to apply the death penalty even though it has no deterrent effect.

However, it does make some folks feel good, so that's more than enough reason to do so

(Especially when its black who are getting killed)

 

And of course, there are all those pesky cases of genocide over the past century or so

(Of, course, those were Hutu's / Jews / Kulaks / Armenians / Native Americans / Tibetans being killed)

 

And then, of course, there's what's happening in Alleppo this very morning

(Of course, those are enemies of the Assaad regime who are being killed)

 

I'm willing to bet that much of the world is perfectly OK with killing, so long as someone else is the one who is going to die...

[Cyberyeti]

your biases are showing. I guess that in your world there never have been religions other than the three of the book (Judaism, Islam and Xianity)? I wonder where Bhuddists got their morality, or are they reckless, wanton murderers, adulterers and thieves? Or Hindu? Or pre-colonization/forced conversion inhabitants of NA? etc.

 

What many westerners appear to fail to understand is that there are virtually NO original elements in the jewish or Christian mythologies, including codes of law and events such as the flood. This is a testament (pun acknowledged) to the success of (mainly) Xianity in claiming to itself the mantle of being the word of god, rather than being a hodgepodge of now largely forgotten myths from vanquished societies. And, of course, Europe and in latter years NA have long relied upon the self-evident truth that the beliefs of other cultures are primitive and of no consequence.

 

My biases are not showing, I'm in no way religious.

 

What I'm saying is that Western laws were largely written down by religious people because they had the power (this may be true elsewhere also), and that the bible was a handy place for them to start. Much of the moral code existed before, just not always written down.

[Cyberyeti]

You have to be careful with where you are going here CY. What represents a group in this context? White supremacists can certainly be considered to be a group and at one time were an extremely large one. Should we avoid any law that they do not agree with? Just the last election has shown that there are groups with views that one would hope a civilization such as the USA would not enact into law - but if we cancel any law that they do not agree with then who knows where we might head? I think you need to rework your criteria here and come up with a more considered position.

 

I was thinking of broader groups than that and in the context of a modern Western society. (This reply goes to Mr Ace's post about honour killings etc also)

[hrothgar]

I was thinking of broader groups than that and in the context of a modern Western society. (This reply goes to Mr Ace's post about honour killings etc also)

 

In the 1920s, Germany was the very model of a modern Western society...

 

If you prefer a more modern example, the United States is a modern Western society that

 

1. Was perfectly happy to kill hundred's of thousands of Iraqi's and destabilize the Middle East because it was easier that admitting that the world is complicated

2. (Vaguely) tires to protect its own people against tobacco, but happily continues to sell this to the third world because they're still stupid enough to pay money

3. Regularly puts blacks to death because it makes us feel good

[barmar]

What about the most important commandment?

 

1. Thou shalt be practical. (I am not trying to override God's word but this commandment should get a lot of respect.)

 

The people imposing their moral beliefs don't know the situation as well as the mother does.

 

(A) in the case that Mom would care about the child, she is probably in a decent position to know that the unborn child would live a very difficult life, I believe we should let her decide to make that not happen.

 

(B) In the case that Mom doesn't care about the child, a good case can be made that this child, if born is going to have serious issues.

 

While I don't think Mom should abort a 32 week fetus, I have to think that letting Mom decide is right most of the time.

If quality of life of the child is the issue, you could justify murdering them even after they're born -- getting past 32 weeks isn't going to make their life any better. In fact, most children born in slums are going to live a very difficult life, might as well just kill them all (given the level of violence and drug abuse in those communities, there's a decent chance they'll eventually become a victim, so we're just saving time).

 

But hardly anyone justifies abortion on that ground. The reason we give women the choice is because it's their body. Until the fetus is able to live on its own, we consider the mother a more "real person" than the child, so they get to decide what happens to themselves.

[Zelandakh]

I was thinking of broader groups than that and in the context of a modern Western society. (This reply goes to Mr Ace's post about honour killings etc also)

How broad is that then precisely? According to the wiki page, 12.6% of Americans are black - is that broad enough? How about the 4.8% of Asian Americans?Or the 0.9% of Native Indians + Alaskan Natives? Presumably the 76% of Christians is broad enough, so what about sub-categories - 25.1% Catholics? 15.8% Baptists? 5% Methodists? 1.4% Mormons? 0.8% Jehovah's Witnesses? Where do you draw the line for "broad"?

 

And we can look at other groupings too - by wealth, age, education level, lifestyle or job sector for example. How many people does such a group have to have to be defined as "broad"? For that matter, how many people would be in the group "white supremicist" or "alt-right"? I certainly do not know but it would not surprise me if there were more that identified with the term "alt-right" than some other groups that we might want to protect the rights of. And if your rule was in force, some that were on the fringes would surely add themselves to the group tactically to prevent certain laws from being passed. Which brings us back to the issue - how do you identify groups that you want to protect without emboldening groups that you want to distance yourself from? And is it even the place of government to make such a judgement? As a Liberal I would far rather phrase such bounds in terms of protecting individual rights than in terms of groups. Though that in itself is problematic sometimes of course, I think in the end you end up with a more joined up result than the alternatives.

[Winstonm]

One problem is that even with the ACA it may be too expensive or inconvenient for poorer women to attend regular doctor or midwife appointments as soon as they know they are pregnant. No matter the number and nature of reforms, America's health care will remain fragmented until they switch to a single-payer system.

 

You are right. In the U.S. there is also the problem of finding decent doctors who will accept the payments from Medicaid. For those who don't know, Medicaid is basically a federal-state program to provide health care to poor with children and poor disabled.

 

Doctors are not required to accept payments from all insurances.

 

I agree with you that single payer would be the most effective method but I knowing so many so well who live on the right side of the political spectrum I can almost guarantee that they are incapable of thinking about single payer as anything other than "socialized medicine" to be rejected as forcefully as Communism.

 

Perhaps is a few years when the Cold War baby group dies out and the memory of the U.S.S.R. fades somewhat....

[MrAce]

Removed a personal attack and a couple of replies to it. Keep it civil please, no need to resort to name calling.

 

Thank you Diana.

[Cyberyeti]

How broad is that then precisely? According to the wiki page, 12.6% of Americans are black - is that broad enough? How about the 4.8% of Asian Americans?Or the 0.9% of Native Indians + Alaskan Natives? Presumably the 76% of Christians is broad enough, so what about sub-categories - 25.1% Catholics? 15.8% Baptists? 5% Methodists? 1.4% Mormons? 0.8% Jehovah's Witnesses? Where do you draw the line for "broad"?

 

And we can look at other groupings too - by wealth, age, education level, lifestyle or job sector for example. How many people does such a group have to have to be defined as "broad"? For that matter, how many people would be in the group "white supremicist" or "alt-right"? I certainly do not know but it would not surprise me if there were more that identified with the term "alt-right" than some other groups that we might want to protect the rights of. And if your rule was in force, some that were on the fringes would surely add themselves to the group tactically to prevent certain laws from being passed. Which brings us back to the issue - how do you identify groups that you want to protect without emboldening groups that you want to distance yourself from? And is it even the place of government to make such a judgement? As a Liberal I would far rather phrase such bounds in terms of protecting individual rights than in terms of groups. Though that in itself is problematic sometimes of course, I think in the end you end up with a more joined up result than the alternatives.

 

I would cross section all the decent sized groups, white/non white, christian/muslim/other, wealthy/mid income/poor maybe others like education level and if there was a majority in all, I would consider a measure non controversial. That is not to say that other measures can't be passed, just that any that meet that criterion are probably already there.

[Zelandakh]

I would cross section all the decent sized groups, white/non white, christian/muslim/other, wealthy/mid income/poor maybe others like education level and if there was a majority in all, I would consider a measure non controversial. That is not to say that other measures can't be passed, just that any that meet that criterion are probably already there.

Not sure I follow this. Do you mean groups directly affected? So apartheid would be ok if it was only against 49% or less of the population? Or banning burkas and other muslim symbols from being shown in public? I am probably misreading your position though - but I certainly do not consider any legislation made to the disadvantage of a minority group not to be controversial.

[Cyberyeti]

Not sure I follow this. Do you mean groups directly affected? So apartheid would be ok if it was only against 49% or less of the population? Or banning burkas and other muslim symbols from being shown in public? I am probably misreading your position though - but I certainly do not consider any legislation made to the disadvantage of a minority group not to be controversial.

 

Not at all, you're not reading what I said at all, I would regard apartheid as non controversial if a large percentage of both black and white people (polled separately) wanted it (as well as other divisions), not going to happen.